---

The RfC led to consensus for inclusion. Can we please agree on a specific text to add to the article then? One or two sentences may suffice. We don't need to let this drag on forever, but we do need to heed the RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: to which RfC and consensus are you referring to? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was archived several times, but you can see it here. It was closed as "There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.".Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the last discussion ended with, "since you care so much, put together a proposal." TimothyJosephWood 12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The community cares. The RfC led to consensus for inclusion.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: "Hillary Clinton has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs, despite being asked to release them many times by Bernie Sanders in the primary. Some media outlets have suggested she may be hiding something; presidential candidate Jill Stein concluded that Clinton was "Goldman Sachs' best friend". (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs top executives are only allowed to donate to her campaign, not Donald Trump's.)"Zigzig20s (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to take this loaded suggestion seriously. Best you go back to the drawing board, or get someone else to draft a sentence that isn't full of artistic license. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it reflects reality. And this is not about me. This is a suggestion. If you or other editors have suggestions, please put them down here. Otherwise there is consensus for inclusion and I may have to be BOLD.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)My sentiments are directly relevant to a suggestion that just happens to be made by you -- no need to take it personally. Be bold, as you may; you'll be reverted anyway. You may (?) have consensus for mentioning GS -- but you don't have consensus for the above suggestion re GS. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to make a better suggestion if you think you have one. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it's a start. Now take that and try to word it neutrally, and do so using reliable secondary sources that are not incendiary direct quotes by...lets be honest...a candidate no one really cares about anyway. C'm on Zigs. You're not stupid. You know what parts of that are obviously slanted. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine. It just reflects reality. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to suggest it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly [editorializing] refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure [colloquial and non-specific language] speeches to Goldman Sachs, despite being asked to release them many times [colloquial and non-specific language] by Bernie Sanders in the primary.^{[citation needed]} Some media outlets^[who?] have suggested she may be hiding something^{[clarification needed][citation needed]}. ; presidential candidate Jill Stein concluded that Clinton was "Goldman Sachs' best friend". (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs top executives are only allowed to donate to her campaign, not Donald Trump's.) [UNDUE, colloquial]

Again. C'm on. Act like an editor with 100k edits. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"repeatedly" is important. She did not refuse just once. "six-figure" is important. She was paid a lot for those speeches. "many times" is important; Sanders did not only ask her once. Sure, we can cite those media outlets once we've agreed on the text (otherwise it's a waste of time). The Jill Stein bit seems important to me; she's a contestant in the race. And finally, the top executive donation restriction was also reported in the press. Sorry, all of it reflects reality.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. You do not form your article and then find citations for how you want it to read. You find citations and you write an article based on what they say. TimothyJosephWood 13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to waste my time looking for citations if the text gets rejected. But actually you could find them in the archives of this talkpage topic. Do you have a better text to suggest?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Right now I'm in this to see if you can be bothered to make a substantial neutral contribution to an election article. If any suggestions you make it not clearly supported by reliable sources, it can be presumed rejected. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a citation for Jill Stein, and you rejected it. You could do this about everything. The editor who closed the RfC suggested starting another RfC about the specific wording. I was hoping to end this quickly with a few lines that reflect the reality of these transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it's taken us to discuss whether or not you should provide sources, you could have found two dozen. TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources, and you could reject them. So if anyone else has other suggestions for a text we could add about this topic, please write it here. We can assess if we've made progress within a week.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could spend hours, even days, looking for thousands of reliable third-party sources and you could spend months debating endlessly on talk, and refuse to actually get your hands dirty when it comes down to it. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggestion for a text. Happy to read other suggestions from other editors in the next few days. Not happy to waste my time though. Please respect my time. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no respect for your time when you wish to spend it posting 600+ comments on this talk, and can't be bothered to do any actual work. TimothyJosephWood 14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't talk to me. Other editors will suggest another text, otherwise there is consensus to add such text as per the RfC. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Trump has once mentioned these Goldman Sachs speeches. Has he? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text already in the article is more than adequate: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." - Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think an argument could be made that the sentence be expanded. Perhaps: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents." I'm not specifically endorsing the idea, I don't think it is necessary, and it may ultimately be removed again with historical hindsight, but at this point I'm willing to do almost anything to see this crap fall off the talk page and prevent any further archive warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is close, but I think needs at least a hint of what kind of attention it received. "[...]drawing particular scrutiny from political opponents who insinuated/alleged that (she may be beholden to wall street/that she had promised them something/that she had been (illegally) campaigning for president prior to announcing)". There is probably some neutral way to cover what was being accused there. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutiny is not exactly what it drew, it drew a mention by campaign opponents. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, with speeches to Goldman Sachs highlighted by political opponents in particular." I disagree completely with the suggestions made by ResultingConstant though.-- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with both, because neither a rooted in any description made by a reliable source. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's leave it as it is then. It can't be said that I didn't make an effort to accommodate this. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with including the content, but it doesn't make any sense to parse wording unless you have something to base that wording on. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just best to add after "various organizations" a brief list of them, "such as Goldman Sachs," etc., without adding any commentary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, some excerpts have been released by Wikileaks. I am morally opposed to Wikileaks to be honest, but The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, CBS News, etc., are all reliable sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting turn. I think this would belong under the heading of alleged Russian election interference. The focus of the story reported by the sources today seems to be more that Russian state-sponsored hackers may have been behind the hack, and that this may be the bombshell that Assange thinks will destroy Clinton, than that she said anything particularly controversial. There is talk that some of the material may have been altered. As far as the WP:NOT#NEWS cycle, the whole thing seems to be buried on page 3 behind news of Trump's comments about women, and the hurricane sauntering up the Florida coast. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this stage, we may need a separate subsection about those speech transcripts, maybe called "Speeches to Wall Street". This started in the primary, it was highlighted by Sanders, this is still going on, there is no proof about Russia as far as we know (blaming them sounds like HRC's campaign spin to be honest). It's a defining issue in her campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. What has been released is nothing more than emails talking about statements she made that were "flagged" because they could be used against her, which is normal campaign-related discussion and not at all newsworthy. Wikidemon is right that the real story here is Russian interference in an American election. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unless the contents of the speeches become a massive thing, it doesn't deserve its own section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What difference, at this point, does it make whether it was the Russians or a bored pro-life housewife from Nebraska, who released those secret transcripts? She admitted to being unrelatable because of her rich husband, and she also admitted to saying one thing in front of the public and another thing in private.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged Russian involvement is the locus of the issue, as reported by the sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the campaign spin to dodge the real issue: what she said. Reliable third-party sources have been asking for what she said in those speeches for over a year.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. When Trump had his big chance to use the speeches against Clinton last night, she properly noted that she was talking about Abraham Lincoln (see FACT CHECK) and then pivoted to Russia, which Trump embraced. It's long past time for you to let this go, Zigzig20s. Far too much time has been wasted on this by the good editors of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. There was an RfC which led to consensus for inclusion. You cannot override that. If you're not interested in the topic, no one is forcing you to comment on this discussion. Please don't discourage other editors from adding referenced content for which there is consensus. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is probably a red herring at this point. The material was already included as of the close of the RfC. Any attempt to glean more from the RfC than that is pointless, and stale. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree, as does the person who closed the RfC. Sorry, there is consensus to include this and you cannot override that. That is why we had an RfC.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Please stop beating the dead horse. Whether we add the Russian hacking to the article at some point has nothing to do with the RfC. For now there's nothing here to see. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BU Rob13: When you closed the RfC, which led to "overwhelming" consensus for inclusion, you said, "If there's still disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording, another RfC will need to settle that.". Indeed, four months later, there is complete disagreement on where this information should go or the exact wording. What shall we do then?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant material was already included. The RfC is stale and apart from you, we have all moved on from this months ago. The passage of time has yielded knew material, which has further reduced the weight value of the speech stuff. Your continued unwillingness to work with the other regular editors of this article has been noted. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not been included at all. You may have disagreed with the RfC but the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents disagreed with you and you do not own this article, so we should respect and honor the RfC. I think User:BU Rob13 could help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The RfC does not support your interpretation. The closing (non-admin) editor's opinion was that inclusion was supported, but not with the specific wording you asked for. Moreover, the editor stated that if an agreement could not be reached on the specifics, another RfC might be necessary. My contention at the time was that it (a) lacked the proper context, and (b) was in the wrong section. It is now October, and that discussion ended in April (with a closure in May), which means it is stale. Furthermore, the current version of the article is stable. You are the only editor obsessing over this. Why is that? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should respect the RfC. I am certainly not the only one because the overwhelming majority of RfC respondents agreed with me. We know you disagree, but please respect the consensus. Yes, the RfC closer suggested starting another RfC--let's see if he thinks that is necessary, or if we can just go ahead and add the text. The information (namely, that HRC has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street institutions, leading some in the press to wonder what she is hiding) needs to be added, as per consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a current proposal for adding any specific content to the article or an update to an earlier proposal? If so we can see whether it has consensus. I think my position is clear but I'd entertain any serious proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikidemon and Scjessey: Currently, where in the article does it mention the Goldman Sachs speeches? The RfC resulted in consensus to include that, but I see them nowhere in the article. Zigzig20s would be absolutely right to add a brief mention of them into the article, at the very least, and I would consider its removal to be editing against consensus. Given the very large and well-advertised RfC, that should be included in the article until there is specific consensus to remove it. And no, the close is not my "opinion", it is a binding summary of the consensus reached in that discussion. If you wish to challenge the close itself, feel free to message me on my talk page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016#Post-2008 election contains the statement: "After she ended her tenure as Secretary of State in 2013, speculation picked up sharply, particularly when she listed her occupation on social media as "TBD". In the meantime, Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations." The RfC, now at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 3#Request for comments, asked the question should the sentence "Clinton's speeches to Goldman Sachs, for $675,000, have become "a campaign issue"" be added back, or is there a better way to add this referenced info?. The RfC close states There is consensus that the speeches should be discussed and can be considered a "campaign issue", though not necessarily using that exact term. While the !votes were overwhelmingly in favor of "Yes", the "yes" voters seemed to be voting yes for the inclusion of the content somewhere in the article, not this specific wording or in any one specific location. In the five months since the RfC closure the issue has not been taken up by Clinton's new rival, Donald Trump, to the extent as her old rival, Bernie Sanders, and the main development of note is the release of excerpts of the speeches by Russian hackers via Wikileaks. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BU Rob13: Thank you for being so reasonable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website, and it wouldn't matter if this hadn't been in the headlines lately, but in actual fact this was mentioned by the media and Sanders in the primary, then by Jill Stein and Kellyanne Conway, then by the media when the donation restrictions for Goldman Sachs top executives came to light, and now by the media because of the release of excerpts (there is no proof it was done by the Russians). I agree that we should respect the outcome of the RfC. Perhaps we could add:

• For over a year during the course of her campaign, Hillary Clinton refused to release the transcripts of her six-figure speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies. Opponent Bernie Sanders asked for their release during the primary, as did rival Jill Stein in the general election. Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything; they later published information showing that top executives at Goldman Sachs were banned from donating to Donald Trump's campaign, but free to donate to Clinton's. In October 2016, excerpts from the speeches were published by the press. They showed that Clinton believed she could not relate to most Americans because of her rich husband; she admitted she said one thing in public and another thing behind closed doors; and she disclosed information about the Ben Laden raid.

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BU Rob13: Perhaps you haven't read the extensive and exhaustive discussion that has gone on since the close of the RfC. Your exact words in closing included "though not necessarily using that exact term," and in the months since the closure we have been debating exactly what would be appropriate. Numerous good faith attempts to come up with appropriate text have been made, but Zigzig20s has rebuffed all of them in favor of extreme, non-neutral absurdities like the ludicrous proposal in the comment preceding this one. And now, with the benefit of historical perspective, it is clear the original proposed text was recentism at best. I should also point out that nowhere in WP:RFC does it say a closure is "binding" - only Arbcom has that power. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: See WP:CON, which details that consensus is our method of deciding article content, and WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, describing what you could do to challenge a close if you disagree with it. You can also refer to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which lists rejecting community input (with a specific reference to RfCs) as an example of disruptive editing, and WP:BP, which allows blocks in response to disruptive editing. I'm not saying we're anywhere close to anything like that; we're not even on the same continent yet. But a plethora of our most basic policies support that you must follow the consensus reached at an RfC until you can demonstrate that consensus has changed. Further, given how large the RfC was, any alternative consensus developed without an RfC would likely be a local consensus; you'd need an additional RfC if you want to alter the outcome of the issue. On the other hand, Zigzig20s, you have over 100,000 edits, so I won't insult you by treating you like a new editor. "Meanwhile, the media wondered if she was hiding anything." Really? You know perfectly well that that's completely non-neutral, and you haven't even bothered to provide a citation to such an evocative statement. @Wikidemon: Currently, the article states that she gave speeches, but not that the speeches became a campaign issue during the primaries and were questioned by her primary opponent. As per the RfC, that should be added. Until further consensus develops, it should be added minimally and neutrally, meaning something to the effect of "Clinton's practice of giving paid speeches to corporations such as Goldman Sachs was questioned by her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, who called for Clinton to release transcripts of the speeches." This is really a bare minimum that would comply with the RfC outcome. If even that is objectionable to anyone, you'd have to make another RfC, because the current consensus was to include that information in the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:BU Rob13. It's not my word, but if you want to rephrase it, that's fine. The important thing is to respect the RfC, as you suggest above.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and expanded the material per this discussion.[1] - Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's sufficient.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It complies with the RfC per the discussion above. If you want additional material, I suggest you begin a new consensus-building discussion for it at the bottom of this talk page. But this matter is now concluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BU Rob13: Please don't threaten me with blocks when you have absolutely no basis for doing so. If I had edited against consensus, or edit warred, or anything like that then I would agree with you, but I absolutely haven't. All I have done is engage in discussion to resolve the issue which you yourself highlighted. In fact, several editors have attempted to find common ground with the original poster, but to no avail. If you have a problem with the way I have conducted myself, take it to WP:ANI, but don't make block threats without a solid grounding for doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:BU Rob13. Can we please add "Goldman Sachs"? Also the fact that this was not just an issue during the primary, but throughout the campaign (to this day), and that she has repeatedly refused to release the transcripts, until excerpts were published in the press? And the content of the excerpts?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x2 @Scjessey: I did not threaten to block you. In fact, I explicitly stated that we aren't even on the same continent as the blocking policy having anything to do with this. I was explaining the policy basis for consensus being binding until a new consensus is reached, and the blocking policy happens to be a part of that. I've been pinged to this page nearly a dozen times since I closed that RfC, and I'm somewhat shocked that the RfC result still hadn't been implemented months later. Clarity was needed that the result cannot simply be ignored, especially given some of the incorrect statements made above about how consensus-building works. @Zigzig20s: You may not think it's sufficient, but it complies with the letter and spirit of the RfC result. A new RfC would be needed to go farther (except possibly for the addition of "Goldman Sachs" as an example of a corporation she gave speeches to, which was well-supported at the past RfC). @Wikidemon: Thanks for the expansion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict]. "Goldman Sachs" should definitely be added. By the way, I think this should be in the "controversies" subsection as opposed to buried in the "post-2008 election" section, as it has most definitely been a constant "controversy" throughout the entire campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added Goldman Sachs specifically, the issue of not releasing transcripts, and that it was an issue in the general election too,[2] all of which are helpful for context and introduce useful sources. Generally, articles are best organized chronologically or else thematically by subject matter. Adding too many things to a "controversies" section creates a lot of problems with flow, is hard to deal with for POV, and can turn into a WP:COATRACK. The story of an election campaign is about issues, fundraising, tactics, actions, and yes, some amount of sparring between opponents. Designating every issue as a controversy simply because opponents cast it as one is not a good idea. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we are done here, with Wikidemon's text satisfying the RfC. I move that we close this thread immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Give us a minute. We have failed to reach consensus about where to place this information. I will have a think.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there no consensus to add the Goldman Sachs top executive donation restrictions and the content of the excerpts? User:BU Rob13 suggested starting another RfC for it if we have to.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, BU Rob13 and I all agree with the edits performed by Wikidemon. You are the only editor disagreeing. Time to close. And you don't NEED another RfC unless discussion has broken down on proposed changes, and you haven't even proposed such changes yet. Do so in a NEW SECTION at the bottom of the page if you must, but do not extend this discussion because it has ended. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, please stop trying to close topics before we are done. You did this several times (with the campaign book for example). If you don't like a topic, no one is forcing you to look at it. There is no consensus for where this information should go (indeed, it is currently buried in the primary even though it's been an issue throughout the campaign). The new RfC is not my idea, it's User:BU Rob13 's: "A new RfC would be needed to go farther."Zigzig20s (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Wikidemon's edits. I think that's sufficient and any more goes to WP:UNDUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might think it has gotten undue weight in reliable third-party sources for over a year and still is, but that's not for us to decide. This issue did not end in the primary and it makes zero sense to bury it in the primary subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a small issue in the primaries and it's an even smaller issue now, even with a few excerpts released. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more, due to RS weight. It was even mentioned at the last debate. Not a small issue at all. I am busy preparing a meeting for tomorrow, but we should think about where to place this and where to add the content of the excerpts (since she still won't release the transcripts); I suppose we could add her line of defense (blaming it on the Russians, no mea culpa). Saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that, then start an RfC in a new subsection with your proposed changes. There's no point in pinging me; I have no strong view one way or the other on this. I'm merely acting as the closer to implement the community's consensus at the RfC, and the edits by Wikidemon satisfy the consensus developed at that discussion. Further attention/detail will require an RfC given the amount of opposition for it here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on "weight" from "RS's", the most important thing to come out of the second debate was Ken Bone. And yet he isn't going to be mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But this is on the same topic--not a trivial issue at all. Why would we try to hide the content of the transcripts? According to The Guardian, this is what her campaign wants to do.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is kind of trivial, in its way. I just came across this New Yorker piece that calls the leaks "illuminating but unsurprising" and "illuminating but underwhelming". The content of them is really minimal. Hillary's campaign is scripted - like we didn't already know this. John Podesta has a really great risotto recipe. Yum! What more should we be adding than what's already there? She's allowed to give these speeches, she's allowed to have different public and private messages (much, as she pointed out, Lincoln did regarding slavery). This is a whole lot of nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem trivial to you that she is saying one thing to the public and the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations? That she pretends to be in favor of protectionism (against TPP) but dreams of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"? These are real policy differences behind closed doors. Why won't she release those transcripts for the American people to know what's what?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've unclosed this because the editor who "closed" it is not uninvolved, and their rationale is invalid. Not every politician gives policy positions to the public and the exact opposite to her donors like Goldman Sachs: only HRC does this. The content of the transcripts has received substantial media coverage in reliable third-party sources and it has become a campaign issue; it should therefore appear in the article. Do we need to start another RfC to add this?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just being disruptive and tendentious. Closing a thread does not need an uninvolved editor. It just needs the thread to be over, which it is, because the RfC has been satisfied. And "Only HRC does this" is a BLP violation, because it's a blatant lie about a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not uninvolved, and the discussion is not over, because as I explained several times this topic is not just about the RfC, but also where to place the info, and what the content of those transcripts is. And no, it's not. Name other politicians who have told the exact opposite policies to Goldman Sachs? As far as we know, there is just one.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is "Clinton earned over $11 million giving 51 paid speeches to various organizations, including Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks. The speeches, and Clinton's not releasing their transcripts, would be raised as an issue by her opponents during the upcoming primary and general election campaigns." That seems adequate for now because while terse, it is appropriate weight considering media coverage. The media paid little attention to what Jill Stein said for example and the current Wikileaks publication of leaked Podesta emails has been overshadowed by the leaked Trump-Billy Bush tape. TFD (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. You are correct to point out that there is ample content about the Trump allegations but not enough about Hillary's. However, I disagree with you about weight of RS regarding the excerpts from HRC's secret Goldman Sachs speech transcripts. There would be enough references to create Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations (to echo our undue content about Trump). What I suggest right now is simply that we add encyclopedic content to this campaign article about what she has been telling Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street and big pharmaceutical companies, as it is the exact opposite of what she has been telling the American people. Since we are dealing with campaign policies here, it is absolutely relevant to this article. We could start with the fact, as reported by The Guardian that she has told the American people she would reign in Wall Street, and yet she told the opposite to Goldman Sachs about financial regulations.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is unrelated, please move it to a new section at the bottom of this talk page and allow this section to be closed. Also, "Hillary Clinton financial misconduct allegations" is never going to exist per WP:POVFORK. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. It is not unrelated. It is absolutely germane. This topic is the Goldman Sachs transcripts and we are discussing the content of the Goldman Sachs transcripts.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a new thing not related to the RfC, which this discussion was about. Please just do what I asked and open a new section, otherwise this will continue to be an unwieldy mess as we are forced to wade through all the previous POV bullshit when we add comments. Pretty please, with a cherry on top. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. This topic is about the unreleased (or secret) Goldman Sachs transcripts. Sure, there was an RfC because some editors (including you) wanted to keep the information out of this campaign article, and the community consensus as a result of the RfC was for inclusion. But now we are also discussing the content of those transcripts. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to come here. But let's try to focus on what's at stake here: what she said in those speeches, as per weight of RS. For example, the exact opposite of what she has told the American voter about financial regulations. Or her hidden support for transnational free trade. Real policy differences between her public statements and secret speeches.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could we please agree on a short text to add? Something like, "Clinton campaigned on the need for more financial regulations, yet in a private speech she told Goldman Sachs the opposite."?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Should the following statement be added to the "Controversies" section of this article:

At a fundraiser on September 9, 2016, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it."^[1] Clinton's comment was criticized by her opponents, and the following day she stated that she regretted saying 'half', and added "It’s deplorable that Trump has built his campaign largely on prejudice and paranoia and given a national platform to hateful views and voices, including by retweeting fringe bigots with a few dozen followers and spreading their message to 11 million people."^[2][3][4]CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Oppose as written. A mention of the "deplorables" could be worth adding if added with the context of her "alt-right" speech, which gives good context on who the "deplorables" are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include Hillary's comment was widely reported by very reliable sources and is highly relevant to her campaign. It's been compared by a number of sources to Romney's "47%" comment, which received prominent mention in his Campaign 2012 article.CFredkin (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and please withdraw / suspend yet another pointless RfC. As things now stand it would be a weight violation, as well as POV depending on the wording. Whether this issue will eventually belong in the article, and how, is simply not knowable at this point because it is too recent and events if any have not yet unfolded. The proliferation in American political articles of rapid-fire and often overlapping RfCs on minor issues that are derogatory to the candidates, of that fail to gain immediate consensus, is disruptive and not conducive to collaborative editing or to article creation. We are now about 7 weeks before the election and each of these RfCs theoretically runs for 4 weeks. When started the issue at hand is fairly fresh in the news and lots of people who aren't familiar with the article, or editing political articles in general, rush in to say it's notable because it is in the news. Days later the story dies down, and we're left with an RfC that is neither well thought through or represents any lasting consensus of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree this was yet another rush to RfC. We've only had a weekend to process the "deplorables" comment, it's only still going through its first cycle in the media, so we don't 100% know how to portray it yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. The breadth of reliable third-party sources covering this remark, the fact that Trump's campaign has responded, and its comparison to Mitt Romney's 47% comment all mean that this has become a campaign issue. Thus, it should be included. The RfC is unfortunate but necessary to make sure the article reflects content from reliable third-party sources and that we all remember this should not be a campaign ad.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary, and quite WP:POINTY in fact, since discussion to reach a consensus for inclusion is still ongoing above. Have patience. We're not Breitbart. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Guardian, etc. Please let this RfC run its course. Anyway, I am reading a book--I don't have time to reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, there are NYT/WP/CNN stories on just about everything a candidate does during the presidential election. That doesn't mean every detail deserves inclusion in the article. I say wait and see if there is a lasting impact. Brianga (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include It has received significant coverage and has been compared to Obama's "cling to their guns and bibles" (2008) and Romney's 47% (2012) comments. And of course we should include Clinton's defense, that it was an over-generalization that she regrets. TFD (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include in some form User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include the comments made news, and it was not some fringe news, so much so that Hillary had to apologize for the comments. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include in some form, impact of remark continues to grow and media coverage, response, and analysis is, in fact, so massive that this topic could probably support an independent article. I strongly urge that we close this discussion and add material to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was asked to come here and to delete a brief statement on this which I had added to the article ("On September 9, in a speech at a New York campaign fundraising event, Clinton described "half" of Trump's supporters as "deplorable," saying, "you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that... Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable. But thankfully they are not America."[199] According to New York Magazine, this was the 3rd time that Clinton had referred to Trump supporters as "deplorable," but the first time that the Trump campaign made "a big deal," out of the description.[199]") If deleting it is the correct procedure, I will do so. However, I added it to the article because after 3 days of intense coverage (now including commentators responding to the responses to her remark, and a debate about whether to count Clinton's apology as an apology or merely to describe it as a "regret," and much more [5]) and I frankly deem it better for the project to include a simple statement of what she said, even while we discuss what more to add. the sourcing is just so massive, and imho we damage only our own reputation by the appearance of not covering major campaign developments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- what to do about the fact that someone has gone ahead and added it even though there's an RfC in progress? Seems like wasting people's time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We remove it. Rather than simply come to a consensus on our own, this RfC abuse means we have to wait for the whole process to conclude. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make stuff up tell lies about me, User:Moboshgu; it is rude and slanderous. "clearly" the sequence of events was hat I went to the page after listening to the new cycle and and added content that to me seemed both neutral and patently notable. Then someone came to my talk page to inform me that this is an ongoing RFC. Then I came here and asked an honest question about whether the material I had added should be removed while this RFC is ongoing. Note that there was no edit war. no reversion (except yours). I beleive that you owe men an apology. I would still like a clarification on whether we have a policy on whether the moot material stays on the page or is removed during an RFC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a policy or guideline directly the broad point of editing an article during an RfC or consensus discussion. Perhaps there is and I missed it. However, as a matter of good editing practice I would think that in the spirit of collaboration and BRD, people should not upset the status quo version of an article while an RfC or consensus discussion is in progress on that very topic. E. M. Gregory makes a good point: that the content is so obviously necessary that it would be a disservice to readers and look bad for the encyclopedia to omit it during the RfC process. I don't agree with that point, as it turns the burden on its head of establishing consensus for making changes. Also, the discretionary sanctions (described at the top of this page) include the caution: Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. The content has been challenged here on the talk page. It shouldn't be necessary to go through a game of adding and then reverting it in order for editors to exercise caution. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include - This speech was analyzed and critiqued by many third-party sources. The speech is still controversial because Clinton only apologies for her exaggerated percentage; she still refers to many of Trump's supporters as deplorables. Type in "Hillary Deplorables" onto Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 - The speech is still reported by many news articles (via Google News). For example, here is a recent analysis by Vox regarding her comment. Also, the word "Deplorable" has increased greatly on Google Trends. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 - In a report by USA Today, several Trump supporters embrace the "Deplorable" label. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3 - Trump just addressed his crowd in Miami with this opening line: "Welcome to all of you deplorables". Report from the Guardian and Report from Business Insider. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4 - New York Times has posted this opinion article on September 22, 2016. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 5 - Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, has doubled down on Clinton's deplorable comment in an interview on Meet the Press by claiming "I think a lot of the people that stand by Donald Trump are deplorable. And the things that they say are deplorable." Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion of this material and Support suspending this RFC for at least two weeks. I oppose inclusion because I can see that this is way too soon to know if these news reports have any impact at all on the course of Hilary's presidential campaign WP:NOTNEWS. Also, if reports of her remarks turn out to have no bearing on the direction of the campaign, then the error of including this material would probably amount to a BLP violation, per NPOV. Also, thank you for removing this material from the article per WP:TOOSOON and per NPOV. I support suspending this RFC per User:Wikidemon - it is premature. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Another RfC? - From WP:RFC: "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." The debate over this issue is just a few hours old, with no evidence of the need for any form of dispute resolution at this early stage. Many regular editors have not even had a chance to comment in the discussion. This is another abuse of the RfC process, which always seem to come from editors eager to put negative stuff in Clinton articles, by the way. The RfC should be withdrawn, the OP should be trouted, and the discussion that had really only just begun should be allowed to run its course in the usual way. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the "regular editors" that you referred to above? The suggestions that conducting a RfC is disruptive (when there are no other RfC's in progress for the article) and that it's somehow a bad thing to solicit input from the broader community are absurd. IMO editors making such assertions are the one's who should be trouted. And for the record, this RfC at the Talk page for Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 was started with absolutely no prior Talk discussion on the issue.CFredkin (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFedkin, although this is an "Otherstuff" argument, it appears there was discussion, as pointed out by the second Ivoter jn that particular RFC - one link is this one ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proliferation of RfCs is surely disruptive. The process is intended to solicit wider input on significant questions well down the process of consensus-building, if the article editors need some additional perspective, not a knee-jerk process gaming by an editor who can't shoehorn in their favored content three days into a news cycle. If the Trump articles have the same RFC abuse as the Clinton articles, that's not really our problem here but that would be a disruption issue to address there as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This. This is another instance of CFredkin trying to abuse one process or another to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy. Spamming RfCs to have content determined by vote rather than discussion and consensus is indeed disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose to the version posted on the RfC. I think only 2nd comment by Clinton could be included somewhere, but only in appropriate context and not as a separate subsection. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include in some form, strongly. It is clearly relevant and past precedent is clearly in favor of it. I see absolutely no reason not to. Even in the form above is fine - it is, after all, a wiki, and if people object to the specific wording, then they can edit it, so long as the basic essence remains. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Piers Morgan:"This could be the weekend that cost Hillary Clinton the presidency [[6]]. The repercussion are continuing to explode, commentators are talking about Clinton throwing away her credibility last Friday. Let's not trash our credibility by deleting this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing Piers Morgan's opinion isn't worth the spittle coming from his mouth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a shit what Piers Morgan says? I mean, Ed Anger is a more reliable and noteworthy source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Postpone decision for one or two weeks to see if the thing has legs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose adding the above paragraph, but the information should be included somewhere. The biggest problem with this paragraph is that it doesn't mention the other "half" of the Trump supporters that Clinton described. I believed she said the other half felt economically anxious and politically let down, looking for any kind of change. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but the whole description should be included, not just the "deplorables" bit, per WP:WEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. Stongly. SaintAviator lets talk 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - This has been covered by multiple high-quality sources and is directly relevant to the campaign. Although the MSM may stop covering it in few days, it has already reached the level of significance to justify inclusion, much like Binders full of Women and similar public comments that politicians wish they hadn't made.- MrX 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and most certainly not without the other part of the quote. Come on, the important half of the quote is being cut off in a pretty transparent attempt to push POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude We can point to Romney's "binders full of women" and 47% comment as campaign-ending gaffes only because he lost the election, arguably due to those statements. We can't say that about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" at this time. Even the sources we have are just speculating about its impact. clpo13_(talk) 23:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romney's Binders full of women article was created on October 2012, one month before Romeny lost the election. Although the article was considered for deletion around the same time, the result was "No Consensus". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the Aleppo gaffe is discussed on Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016; where it was removed, but re-added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has a section containing about a dozen such gaffes. We either need to delete major, new-cycle leading gaffes from the Gary Johnson and Donald Trump pages, or keep this one here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example, there is a controversy on the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 called Veterans for a Strong America event. There are not any recent sources for that news story and there are only 234 reports listed on Google News. Meanwhile, Hillary's Deplorable statement has half a million articles listed on Google News. There are even less stories on Khizr Khan alone (with almost 100,000 articles on Google News and about ten thousand articles about "Gold Star Family") and that gaffe was all over the news for a while. Finally, Trump's biggest gaffe (The second amendment speech) has about 182,000 articles on Google News. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Exclude but only for the time being. The comment could very well be a turning point for the election, and if it rises to the prominence of Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment, I would consider it a slam-dunk. I think the article, and the general cause of knowledge, can suffer the delay. After all, an encyclopedia isn't news. Heterodidact (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From my experience watching this (and I've been watching it all), we have a lot of editors who want to argue a lot and not do crap to improve the project, we have a few experienced editors who have forgotten what it's like to AGF, we have a lot of editors who don't show up until there is an RfC, and none of it matters, because when they all disappear no one who is left can pull their shit together long enough to even implement the consensus of the last RfC. So the default outcome of this RfC is not include, because even when previous RfCs have had consensus for inclusion, everyone is so involved in arguing and attacking one another that nothing gets done anyway. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Include per MrX. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note For the sake of completeness here is the full quote. As can be easily seen, quoting just the cherry picked part is obviously POV. Just because that's the way breitbart does it, doesn't mean we stoop to their level:

You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They're racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket–and I know this because I see friends from all over America here–I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas–as well as, you know, New York and California–but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they're in a dead end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, the final phrase of citation "Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well" is important. In essence, this RfC asks a question: "Should [this selective quotation out of context] be included?". I am sure that using selective quotation out of context goes against our core policies ("five pillars"). Whatever consensus here might be, it should be void and overwritten by our core policies. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the proposal is a blatant attempt to push POV by manipulating the quote and context and many of these "include" votes aren't much better. Maybe half of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include – Eminently notable statement, widely described as a defining moment of the campaign, both by supporters and opponents of Clinton. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include This was an important statement and there was a lot of media coverage of it. Metron (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close this discussion and include a brief description of incident. My reasoning is that it is an abuse of the RFC process to use it to keep patently notable material and RS material out of an article, we risk WP:UNDUE and giving our readers the impression of political bias not only by acts of POV inclusion, by also by acts of POV omission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "move" to close discussions, we let RfCs run their course.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with closing this RfC because it should never have happened, and I also agree the matter needs to be included, but absolutely not in the way written by the OP. We can continue this discussion outside this RfC in the usual way, until consensus wording emerges. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include – it is note worthy and akin to Mitt Romeny's "47%" comment; there is enough independent coverage by RS sources, as well. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include - A widely-reported and obviously significant incident, since it has led to media speculation it could potentially cost Clinton the election. No valid reason for not mentioning it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. It's funny. (And also, it's widely reported, well-sourced, and probably will get some lasting impact.) epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, major political gaffe with heavy coverage and substantial implications for the future course of the campaign. The phrase has become a rallying cry for Trump fans ([7][8]), and Clinton's walking-back of the remark attests to the controversy's notability. It was deemed significant enough to use in an ad: [9]. It's even spawned sub-controversies, such as Pence's refusal to call David Duke "deplorable": [10][11][12]. It doesn't need its own paragraph, but a few sentences will do for now. If it becomes more significant as things develop, I imagine we can expand it as needed. However, I do think the second quote should be trimmed, as it doesn't seem to add anything. GAB^gab 02:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, this controversy should be included, but not in the way suggested on this RfC. Yes, the phrase was taken out of context by campaigners to conduct their propaganda, but it does not mean we should continue their propaganda in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include this version. Per conversation below, consensus seems to be for this wording in particular. Agree with GAB that the second quote needs trimmed to about half, or replaced with prose to the same effect, but for the time being I support inclusion of this wording as a starting place, which can be subsequently tweaked as needed. TimothyJosephWood 14:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS -- I doubt it would damage Clinton to have this included here, but I think it would damage Wikipedia to act as such a transparent vehicle for the campaigning interests of those who think she spoke out of turn. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Exlude per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE), WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Everything any such politician says is "controversial" to someone. Whether this is a lasting, noteworthy controversy that will affect the campaign waits to be seen (and is highly dubious). This article is not meant to be a catalog of every potentially "controversial" statement ever made by Clinton.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are many controversial actions made by Donald Trump that remain on his controversies section that are smaller than this particular controversy. For example, the Veterans for a Strong America event is not widely reported by the media, with only 295 articles on Google News. Also, there is a section dedicated towards Trump's misstatements, and yet Clinton does not, even though she has said many controversial comments like the Deplorables comment, her emails (Clinton has claimed that she "did not send or receive any material marked classified", despite receiving emails that were later found to be classified at a confidental level), and her comment against coal miners, in which she called the comment a "misstatement". Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time, what goes on in the Trump article has no bearing on what goes on here. Why is this so hard for editors to understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Yoshiman6464 is just making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument-to-avoid. The Donald Trump article has its own problems, and the editorial pool at it has their own hands full working them out. The responsibility of editors at this page is making this article as best as we can, on its own merits, not as part of, or a tool of, the off-WP political struggles going on. Given the debate I saw on TV a few hours ago, I have little doubt that the pressure to include more "controversies" in the Trump article will mount, but that has nothing to do with undue weight and encyclopedic relevance issues at this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include. There are reliable sources who analyze the comment in terms of what it means to her support in polls: [13], [14]. There are also sources that analyze it in terms of the atmosphere of the election: [15]. And, there are sources who report that it's being fact-checked: [16]. That's a lot of analysis. Find a way to neutrally summarize the analysis and include it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include, for obvious reasons; this is clearly one of the most important events of the 2016 campaign and should have its own section, as I'm sure it will in the medium term once the historical analysis of the campaign starts to appear. As for the wording, it needs serious copy editing. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Exclude. WP:NPOV, WP:RECENTISM. The Washington Post question was: "Do you think it’s fair or unfair to describe a large portion of Trump’s supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities?" The question did not mention Hillary Clinton or her choice of words, and starting the last sentence with "this attack" is your clearly biased POV. Your summation of Flegenheimer’s NY Times article is also way off the mark. WP:NPOV. The remarks received some coverage, but it was never a controversy. Public attention has moved on. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Include. But with significant rewording to more accurately describe what she said... Let's not kid ourselves, just because he makes gaffes all the time doesn't mean that her making one is therefore not notable. As a politician, and by those standards, the comment was notable in its use of the word half and should be included saying as much. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

As this RfC is leaning towards inclusion, I'd like to work here with fellow editors towards a consensus formulation of the event. Starting with the nominator's proposal and a few helpful suggestions mentioned along the way, adding citations about recent developments. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence.^[1] At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it."^[2] Clinton's remark was criticized as potentially insulting to millions of Americans,^[3][4] and the following day she expressed regret for saying "half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".^[5] The "Deplorables" moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters,^[6] with the Trump campaign inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage^[7] and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement.^[8] This attack was deemed unfair by a large share of Clinton's supporters (45%) as well as Trump's (90%),^[9] many commentators comparing the gaffe to Mitt Romney's 47% comment in 2012.^[2][3][4][9]

References

1. ^ Flegenheimer, Matt (August 25, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says 'Radical Fringe' Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump". New York Times.
2. ^ ^{a b} Montanaro, Domenico (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign". NPR.
3. ^ ^{a b} Epstein, Jennifer (September 10, 2016). "Clinton Calls Some Trump Supporters 'Basket of Deplorables'". Bloomberg News.
4. ^ ^{a b} Chozick, Amy (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables,' and GOP Pounces". New York Times.
5. ^ Reilly, Katie (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time.
6. ^ Cummings, William (September 12, 2016). "'Deplorable' and proud: Some Trump supporters embrace the label". USA Today.
7. ^ Hagen, Lisa (September 10, 2016). "Supporters join Trump on stage: We are not deplorable". The Hill.
8. ^ Trudo, Hanna; Shepard, Steven (September 12, 2016). "Trump releases new ad hitting Clinton for 'deplorables' remark". Politico.
9. ^ ^{a b} Blake, Aaron (September 26, 2016). "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach". The Washington Post.

Please add your support, opposition, comments and suggestions below; I will amend the text above until we reach an acceptable consensus formulation. — JFG ^talk 21:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've said this before, but here's a good place to say this again. Her "deplorables" comment cannot be fully understood without considering the "alt-right" speech she gave about two weeks prior.[17][18][19] I would like to see a sentence mentioning the alt-right speech placed before the deplorables remark, if this is indeed to be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal? TimothyJosephWood 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is a rough sketch. Also I don't think the snap "voter feedback" stuff is so useful, as really any uproar has long since died out. Also the "was criticized" has a strawman feel to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: I incorporated your suggestion about the alt-right speech in the proposal above, so we can keep the conversation clear. No need for a "criticized by whom" as this is in two quoted sources (criticism came from Trump's campaign, pollsters and journalists). Regarding the negative voter feedback, this was culled from a September 26 article reporting on public opinion about this very question, two weeks after the controversy erupted, so that's not part of an initial knee-jerk reaction which would have died out; keeping the phrase. — JFG ^talk 05:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would replace "moment" with "comments" or "statement". "Moment" in this case, is a completely meaningless vanilla filler noun. Other than that is seems fine. TimothyJosephWood 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JFG ^talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the final sentence. First, the referenced poll did not specifically ask respondents about the "basket of deplorables" comment, but rather it asked about a generic generalization that is loosely related. Second, the sentence seems to suggest Democrats were "negative" toward the comment, when in fact less than half (47%) of Democrats were negative toward the generic question asked in the poll and 49% thought it was fair. Third, it seems to mash up the response of the polled registered voters with the opinions of commentators, which is problematic for both the mash up and the fact that we shouldn't be using opinion pieces. Fixing the sentence would be difficult, because you would necessarily have to go into the weeds of why the poll is only related to the comment. It would be better to simply say "a poll^[1] indicated a majority of respondents thought it was unfair to describe a large portion of Trump's supporters as prejudiced against women and minorities" and ditch the opinion pieces comparing the comment to the Romney gaffe. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Scjessey: I see your point, however this article makes it clear that Clinton's comment resonated negatively not only with Trump supporters (90%) but also with a large segment of Clinton's base (45%), which is unusual in this strongly polarized election and the salient fact emphasized by the article. It's not an isolated comment, as several sources support this assertion (but we don't need to bludgeon the paragraph with more). To address your concerns, I rephrased the text to "This attack was deemed unfair" and I added the raw numbers so readers can judge for themselves how strongly this statement has been rejected. Concerning the comparison to Romney's statement, most of the sources drew this parallel (I referenced four from sources already used in this paragraph, without even looking deeper to find more), so inclusion is WP:DUE. — JFG ^talk 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Include though I may quibble with the wording: the comment generated substantial international interest in addition to huge domestic coverage, and it would be an NPOV violation to leave the matter out. Of course, I do wish that those folks who simply have an axe to grind against Hillary would stick to matters of substance, like her flip-flopping on the TPP, but I suppose we cannot blame Wikipedia for the failings of the mainstream press in the United States. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Thanks all for your feedback. I believe we have reached a fair formulation, so I have now added the text to the article. Of course it can still be amended by the regular editing process. — JFG ^talk 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted your archiving of this discussion, which was closed prematurely. I have also made changes to the text you put into the article, because (as I stated earlier) the text indicating polling of Democrats misrepresents their views. "Large share of Clinton's supporters" gives the impression of a plurality, which is wrong (even with the percentage you added). The question asked in the poll did not even mention "deplorables", so it cannot be directly tied to the comment. I've also removed the weasel word from the following text about the 47% gaffe, and separated it out. Please don't archive this discussion until the text is actually agreed upon. You will note I graciously didn't just revert your entire text, which I certainly could've reasonably done. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, and thanks for preserving most of the text; my only goal is to get something acceptable done so we can all move on. Do you have a suggested wording for the phrase you disagree with? — JFG ^talk 20:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the phrase should be omitted entirely, which is what I have already done to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think it's significant because it addresses one concern that was expressed in the RFC discussion, namely that of recentism. But I won't push it unless we get consensus support. Fellow editors, any other opinions? Should we have a phrase reporting on voter feedback a few weeks after the incident? — JFG ^talk 22:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, my main problem with the proposed inclusion (aside that it was really just news for a couple days and now it's more or less outdated) is that it omits the second part of the quote. To paraphrase, what she said was that half the Trump supporters are deplorable racists etc., but the other half are people who have a legitimate grievance and who's economic situation has been ignored. The "but the other half" part is important to understanding the meaning of the quote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Do you have a suggestion how to include this second half in a concise manner? Perhaps add "She further mentioned that the other half had legitimate grievances to address." after her direct quote? — JFG ^talk 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is not to bother with this stuff at all. Just leave it out. And seriously, tacking on a weak ass sentence at the end of a quote purposefully taken out of context and pretending that's "balance", where that added sentence actually summarizes what the quote was really about is pretty much the definition of violating POV and WEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: You reverted my revert to the proposed consensus version, so I can't revert back because of WP:1RR. However, the version you restored, as altered by two prior editors FallingGravity and Wikidemon, had not been discussed by them. We are trying to build a consensus version here and I have taken into account all incoming comments before adding the text to the article. Please make your suggestions here before intervening further. — JFG ^talk 13:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: you have a difficulty -- this edit removes quotation marks from the section title, something you have now done twice in the last 24 hours. Hence, a 1RR violation. I suggest self-reverting. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a purely cosmetic change. Any comments on substance from your side? — JFG ^talk 15:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, the RfC is still open. Though the "include" votes outnumber the "exclude" ones it's hardly a slam-bang. Even if there is consensus to include the material, that hardly argues for an entire heading and two paragraph long "controversies" subsection. It's incorrect to characterize it as primarily a controversy, that's beginning to make the controversy section into a coatrack. Rather, it's part of the usual back and forth sniping between candidates leading up to an election. The proposed text is not good. It contains excessive quotations and position statements, as well as unencyclopedic opinion. "Millions of Americans" is campaign-style rhetoric, not encyclopedic tone. "Expressed regret" is inaccurate, as is inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage. "pointed the label back at Clienton" is inaccurate. "A rallying cry" is unencyclopeidc tone. It shouldn't be called a 'gaffe', and the fact that some sources made an inapt comparison to Romney's 47% of Americans comment is not relevant to the campaign. I don't think it's reasonable to have a so-called consensus discussion in the middle of an RfC, much less insist that a version people are editing in the article in the meanwhile represents consensus, which is why I'm waiting to participate until the RfC is closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Even if this is included the "millions of Americans" part needs to go, as it's pure editorializing. Second, some of those "include" votes were/are based on the notion that "this is like Romney's 47% remark". That was WP:CRYSTALBALL when those !votes were made. Now it's pretty much obvious that that is not the case at all. It's nothing like that, people got over it, most people, outside the far-right blogs and faux-media moved on, a large number of people actually seem to agree with her. So maybe the RfC should be restarted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's the obvious point: JFG is a contributor to the RFC, right? Then WTF is he doing "closing" the RfC? And then pretending that his edit is a "consensus version"? Get real dude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, relax, I'm just trying to reach closure on this discussion. Given that the RFC attracted plenty of comments and no new editor weighed in after September 23, I felt justified in moving forward. As some of the participants noted, these events are time-sensitive and it is not mandatory to wait 30 days if the discussion has essentially stopped for more than a week. Regarding the decision to include, I'm happy to let some uninvolved admin assess this, however consensus on inclusion looks pretty obvious. I get it that you'd rather have no mention of this event in the article but it looks to me like the community has decided that it's worth mentioning (and I would recognize that even if I'd !voted against). Regarding the exact text to include, I started a process to improve on the OP's suggestion taking into account remarks made in the discussion and I incorporated the feedback I received. This is called consensus-building; if you want to help, you're welcome to participate and make suggestions. It's not enough to just criticize every part of the text you dislike without submitting anything constructive. Attacking my integrity won't help either. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to wait 30 days, but an (experienced) uninvolved editor should properly weigh consensus and close the discussion. Also, material was added in addition to the proposed text in the RfC. The first time it was removed, it should have stayed out until consensus was formed for its inclusion, per the prominent edit notice.- MrX 23:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. And somebody just posted a close request to that effect. In the meantime, I'm still open to constructive suggestions on the exact text to include, because the OP's text was deemed insufficient by several commenters. — JFG ^talk 05:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you're not being "attacked", you're just being criticized for trying to close an RfC in which you've been quite active, which is pretty sketchy. Second, there's no "time sensitive" issue here unless someone's purpose for including this material is to try and influence the outcome of the election - but this is an encyclopedia, not a god damn tabloid, and that kind of approach sort of betrays the intention of WP:ADVOCACY. Third, stating that only minor alterations to your proposed text constitute "constructive" discussion, while rejecting this POV nonsense wholesale is not, appears to be a (fairly transparent) attempt to manipulate the discussion by framing it in a way which makes meaningful disagreement with your position impossible a priori - and that's an underhanded tactic. Fourth, it's worth recalling at this point that this RfC was started by a user who is now topic banned from this area, and for good reason. That sort of cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole process (the fact that this RfC was disruptive to begin with has been noted by several users above).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I refute any accusation of partisanship. Please note that in this discussion, and in many others related to the election, I have been working towards consensus by including relevant comments made by both supporters and opponents of the proposed inclusion. Your position that nothing should be included has been made loud and clear, but it doesn't reflect the wider community opinion at this point. So your best way forward would be actually proposing some concrete alterations, and accepting that other people will suggest different ones until we reach a formulation that nobody is super happy with but everybody can grudgingly live with. You can't with a straight face call "POV nonsense" a well-sourced summary of what has been actually said by both political sides and numerous serious commentators about this incident. Even when I try to take your remark into account, you blast me for "tacking on a weak ass sentence" (a sentence describing exactly what you asked to add) and you fail to suggest any alternative except "leave it all out". If you want your arguments to be heard, please work with the people who are actually listening to you. — JFG ^talk 08:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the addition of the deplorables material because we have not yet worked out a consensus text, as indicated in the RfC. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is our proposed text so far? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations and commentary about Trump and his supporters engaging in racist, sexist, etc. behavior are a biographical and campaign issue for Trump, not Clinton. Clinton's saying the same thing as everyone else is certainly not a controversy. The only controversy part, if it can be called a controversy, is that she said half of Trump's supporters are deplorable, when the actual number is less than half or perhaps they are not so deplorable. So if this is going to be described as a controversy the content would be roughly that Clinton described Trump's supporters as deplorable, and after initially bristling at the statement Trump and his supporters coopted it as a matter of self-identification. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Acting upon the RfC close, I'm now restarting the consensus-building exercise towards a good enough formulation. Starting with the proposed version as amended earlier. Please comment below and I'll incorporate changes as they are adopted. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence.^[1] At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it."^[2] Donald Trump criticized Clinton's remark as potentially insulting to millions of Americans.^[3][4] Political analysts compared this comment to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe in 2012^[2][3][4][5] and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well.^[5] The following day Clinton expressed regret for saying "half", while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".^[6] The "Deplorables" moniker quickly became a rallying cry for Trump supporters,^[7] with the Trump campaign inviting "deplorable Americans" on stage^[8] and pointing the label back at Clinton in an advertisement.^[9]

References

1. ^ Flegenheimer, Matt (August 25, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says 'Radical Fringe' Is Taking Over G.O.P. Under Donald Trump". New York Times.
2. ^ ^{a b} Montanaro, Domenico (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's 'Basket Of Deplorables,' In Full Context Of This Ugly Campaign". NPR.
3. ^ ^{a b} Epstein, Jennifer (September 10, 2016). "Clinton Calls Some Trump Supporters 'Basket of Deplorables'". Bloomberg News.
4. ^ ^{a b} Chozick, Amy (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables,' and GOP Pounces". New York Times.
5. ^ ^{a b} Blake, Aaron (September 26, 2016). "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach". The Washington Post.
6. ^ Reilly, Katie (September 10, 2016). "Hillary Clinton Says She Regrets Part of Her 'Deplorables' Comment". Time.
7. ^ Cummings, William (September 12, 2016). "'Deplorable' and proud: Some Trump supporters embrace the label". USA Today.
8. ^ Hagen, Lisa (September 10, 2016). "Supporters join Trump on stage: We are not deplorable". The Hill.
9. ^ Trudo, Hanna; Shepard, Steven (September 12, 2016). "Trump releases new ad hitting Clinton for 'deplorables' remark". Politico.

I suggest 48 hours of further comments and consensus-building, i.e. until Tuesday 18 October 12:00 UTC, after which the text will be included and follow the normal editorial process. — JFG ^talk 10:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of problems with the proposed text. I don't think we should have any of it, frankly, but in the interests of trying to work constructively I am offering an alternative. Criticism came almost exclusively from political opponents, according to the sources used, so that needs to be stated. "Millions of Americans" does not appear to be supported by the sources used, and is vague and wishy-washy anyway. Most of what follows from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" does not have anything to do with the Clinton campaign. As I said in the previous discussion, the "polling data" misrepresents the views of Democrats, because the question asked in the survey did not match what Clinton said. Finally, I've removed the weasel words (again!) from the Romney comparison and rearranged the end to make it read better. I have no objection to the sources used, so I have not included them. So here's my suggested text:

On August 25, 2016, Clinton gave a speech criticizing Trump's campaign for using "racist lies" and allowing the alt-right to gain prominence. At a fundraiser on September 9, Clinton stated "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it." Clinton's remark was criticized by political opponents and compared to Mitt Romney's 47% gaffe. The following day, she expressed regret for saying "half" while insisting that Trump had deplorably amplified "hateful views and voices".

Finally, I respectfully suggest you retract the arbitrary 48-hour deadline you imposed. It should not be added to the article until there is consensus, however long it takes. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: Thanks for your input. I agree with attributing criticism to her opponents, namely quoting Trump himself as the sources do; see my edit. Some editors would like to drop the first sentence mentioning her prior alt-right speech (see below #Deplorables section); what do you think? The WaPo piece titled "Voters strongly reject Hillary Clinton's 'basket of deplorables' approach" looks significant enough that we should include it, perhaps with a different wording: the rejection of this blanket characterization by Democrats as well as Republicans is the key theme of this report. I suggest trimming things to "deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and letting readers refer to the source for details. Finally, the appropriation of the "deplorables" moniker by Trump supporters is well-documented and has endured to this day, so it deserves inclusion. I'm open to wording changes and extra sources for this part, which now comes last in the proposed paragraph.

The 48-hour deadline is here to ensure that we move forward; we have already waited for the full 30-day RfC period and we can't let this glaring omission about a significant campaign event drag on until everybody's happy with the text (that will never happen). Yes it's arbitrary but I'm confident that, with a spattering of good faith from all involved, we'll reach consensus on some kind of mention fast enough, then normal editing can resume. — JFG ^talk 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are moving in the right direction, User:JFG; however, I still feel strongly that you cannot use that poll to link the views of Democrats to the "deplorables" comments. The question asked in the poll was way too unspecific to make a direct link, and the RS only vaguely refers to it in the headline (from which you presumably took "approach"). I would still favor excluding polling data completely, especially since it was only a single poll. I also think everything from "The 'Deplorables' moniker" onwards has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign, but in the interests of getting this done I am no longer going to consider this a dealbreaker. As to the first sentence, I think it does give useful context, but to be perfectly honest it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as newsworthy. It would be fair to say I'm neutral as to its inclusion/exclusion. In summary, remove "and Clinton's approach was deemed unfair by many Democrat voters as well" and you have my support. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed the part you opposed and inserted the text into the article. Thanks for your assistance. — JFG ^talk 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• USER JFG: Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk? You edited the closed RfC by adding an official-looking comment to the admin’s closing notes, and you seem to be trying to impose your views by arbitrarily closing an ongoing discussion, starting a new one, and setting a deadline for conclusion of that discussion or else. The RfC close clearly states "… that there is no consensus for including the material in the proposed form …", and here’s your "new" proposal, exactly as proposed before and strongly objected to by numerous editors. Here’s my proposal for a neutral version:

Speaking at a New York LGBT fundraiser for her on Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton said that "… just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables[]" because they are "… racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic …". She continued to say that "the other basket … are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down … and they’re just desperate for change." Trump said the remarks showed "her true contempt for everyday Americans;" some of his Twitter followers added the attribute "deplorable" to their names. Truth-o-Meter The following day, Clinton issued a statement saying that she regretted saying "half" and continued her criticism of a Trump campaign built "… largely on prejudice and paranoia …". Time

Several of the other sources should also be included, TBA if and when the time comes. Signing off with a not-quite-out-of-context Trump quote: "And some, I assume, are good people." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I'm not "in charge" or "imposing my views", I'm just trying to reach consensus and move on. I separated the discussions to clarify what was debated before the RfC close and what is being debated after. Editors who "strongly opposed" typically wanted to include nothing; now the community has decided that this event is notable enough for inclusion and we are collectively refining the text. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs. Clinton did not give that speech on August 25! Matt Flegenheimer's NY Times article on August 25 is about something entirely different, and it was seriously misquoted and misinterpreted by JFG and doesn't belong with this so-called basket of deplorables "controversery" (IMO!). See also my remarks at the end of the new "Deplorables" section (currently last one on this Talk page). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence was added for context per request of another editor; I'm only curating here, not misquoting or misinterpreting; please WP:AGF. — JFG ^talk 10:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: You have no respect for consensus, you just edit things your way after everyone has moved on. Fine, enjoy yourself; I'm not going to fight over this, but let it be clear that I have no respect towards your attitude. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, as User:Space4Time3Continuum2x says above " Did I miss someone putting you in charge of this Talk?" You made a proposal and now you insist that just because you made it it's "consensus". It's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed, folks. Please do not extend it. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]